|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 16, 2015 13:34:55 GMT
I recall reading 'ages ago' about an accessibility lift which was to be installed at Greenford station, instead of one of the escalators. I thought that this was supposed to have opened ages ago, so one Sunday a few weeks ago whilst out and about I thought I'd go and see what is or is not happening. The attached images show the present state of play... its still being installed. Also coming is a photo of a stairwell lift as seen in Germany. In the 1990s! It has glass walls, as this offers greater security and reduces the likelihood of it being used anti-socially, eg: as a latrine, whilst travelling between the upper and lower levels. (I chose the station thread rather than Central Line because on the longer term this is likely to have a network wide effect). For more discussion on up escalators see this locked thread: districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/1844/alpertonSimon     |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 16, 2015 14:47:04 GMT
its called Inline lift - there well alot around world - two inline lifts recently opened at New york subway station (7 line extension)
Stockholm metro has alot of inline lifts in system
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 16, 2015 16:10:40 GMT
Has it meant the removal of the Weygood escalator?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,399
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 16, 2015 16:24:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 16, 2015 21:28:33 GMT
Has it meant the removal of the Weygood escalator? correct - the area where old esclator was (1930 escalator) the modern escalator is on left side crossrail will have some inline lifts at some stations i believe Liverpool street crossrail station will feature 3 of inline lifts |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 22:17:04 GMT
The old 'MY' escalator at Greenford came into service in 1947.
Paris also has a small few inclined lifts. I have used one at Charles de Gaulle - Étoile.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 17, 2015 15:45:29 GMT
Has the Escalator been kept for the Museum?
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 17, 2015 22:40:47 GMT
I can recall seeing a partial wooden escalator at the Acton Depot.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 20, 2015 10:30:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 20, 2015 10:58:50 GMT
Note the quote " with more than half of TfL's rail and Underground stations step-free by 2018"
Which suggests that the time is approaching when the Tube map can be de-cluttered by marking the stations without such access, instead of those with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 20, 2015 12:44:07 GMT
well its needs to see which stations is accessible its better for disabled person - if no blue blobs means they think its not accessible
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 20, 2015 12:50:50 GMT
well its needs to see which stations is accessible its better for disabled person - if no blue blobs means they think its not accessible Obviously - but when we get to the point where 90% of the network is "accessible" wouldn't it be more sensible and clearer to mark - with a red blob or whatever - those stations which are not? Not so long ago TfL marked low-floor-operated bus routes on its maps and timetables. It doesn't now. That doesn't mean there are no low-floor buses left in London: on the contrary. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,399
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 20, 2015 13:57:42 GMT
I wish people (and TfL) would stop the thinking that "step free" = "accessible". It just means accessible for most manual wheelchair users. Actual access needs come in many guises and so the blobs are useless (if not actively misleading) for many people's journey planning requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 20, 2015 14:16:18 GMT
I wish people (and TfL) would stop the thinking that "step free" = "accessible". It just means accessible for most manual wheelchair users. Actual access needs come in many guises and so the blobs are useless (if not actively misleading) for many people's journey planning requirements. in other countries - let take example - Chicago CTA trains maps show disabled symbol next to the blobs or stops not directly on blob but some maps do show disabled access blob on interchange New york subway shows wheelchair symbol - this was shown on older tube map (prior to blue blobs) WMATA does not show blobs but displays metrorail is fully accessible at footer of maps Newscatle metro does not show disabled access on maps cause all stations have full step free |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 1:02:05 GMT
Went on this thing today, bloody brilliant!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 21, 2015 1:15:21 GMT
Seems quite swift!
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 21, 2015 4:00:31 GMT
i love video but however the help point is not TFL standard the normal round white help point could fitted in like other stations have
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 21, 2015 14:58:15 GMT
I'm trying to work out how it uses less power than a 'regular lift'.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 21, 2015 15:15:17 GMT
I'm trying to work out how it uses less power than a 'regular lift'. Presumably because it's not going 'vertical.' it needs less power to overcome gravity? |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Oct 21, 2015 15:36:13 GMT
I'm trying to work out how it uses less power than a 'regular lift'. Presumably because it's not going 'vertical.' it needs less power to overcome gravity? I'd go along with that theory. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 21, 2015 15:41:10 GMT
It takes a fixed amount of energy to raise a given mass to a given height. So if this system uses less energy than the 'regular' type, then some inefficiency in the 'regular' type must have been overcome.
This is what I'm trying to work out.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 21, 2015 16:15:11 GMT
Most lifts and funiculars (and this thing is a bit of both) have a counterweight. (It can be seen in Chris's video - the big yellow thing under the rails moving in the opposite direction). Since the weight of the lift car will vary depending on whether it is full or empty, there will be a difference in weight between the counterweight and the lift car, and energy will be needed to move them if the rising body is heavier than the falling one (and vice versa). However, this energy (which may indeed be negative if the descending lift car is heavier than the rising counterweight) is much smaller than that needed to overcome the friction in the system, and it would be this that would be the main factor in the energy efficiency of the lift. In a vertical lift the whole weight of the mechanism, including the counterweight, is suspended from the pulleys*, and the friction is applied through the bearings of the pulleys. An inclined lift has to be supported on something, presumably rails, and, I would guess, there is rather less friction in such an arrangement .
*There are some lifts which are powered from below by what look like hydraulic rams. The energy exchange there would be in compressing the fluid in the ram.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Oct 22, 2015 10:45:56 GMT
Seeing as Geoff seems to be covering a lot of the rail transport around London, do you think his next one will be "Secrets of the Inclined Lift at Greenford station"?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 22, 2015 13:00:04 GMT
do you think [Geoff's] next one will be "Secrets of the Inclined Lift at Greenford station"? Look further up this thread and you'll see that he's been there, done that! No doubt the t-shirt is on its way |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 22, 2015 13:10:29 GMT
Rule-of-thumb formula for the counterweight (from memory of long ago):
Counterweight = Weight of empty cage + half the maximum load.
The 'less energy' comment probably refers to the escalator it has replaced.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 22, 2015 21:30:42 GMT
I'm trying to work out how it uses less power than a 'regular lift'. Presumably because it's not going 'vertical.' it needs less power to overcome gravity? Isn't power the rate at which work is done, so whilst the total energy drawn may be similar because this is done over a longer distance, it becomes less powerful? Quite happy to be proved incorrect on this one! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 22, 2015 21:58:08 GMT
Presumably because it's not going 'vertical.' it needs less power to overcome gravity? Isn't power the rate at which work is done, so whilst the total energy drawn may be similar because this is done over a longer distance, it becomes less powerful? Quite happy to be proved incorrect on this one! The principle of the inclined plane - indeed. Was that Archimedes or Aristotle? The energy is the same, as the vertical interval is what determines it. The power is the rate of doing work, so if the ascent time is the same the power should be the same. But as the slant distance is longer than the vertical distance if the speed is the same as a vertical lift the vertical component of the speed is less (Pythagoras) and so the time taken is longer and the rate of using energy (power) is less. (Power x time - energy) |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 22, 2015 22:37:40 GMT
I can see that my visit was just a few weeks too early.
I'll be back, as someone famous said. With camera, of course!
On Monday this week I went on the cliff lift (sic) by the wobbly bridge. Filmed a little video too.
Simon
|
|
